Forum

TruthMove Forum

TruthMove Forum » TruthMove Main Forum

Supreme Court rejects limits on corporate spending in electoral campaigns (3 posts)

  1. truthmod
    Administrator

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic...

    America assures that you have the freedom to oppress, brainwash, and essentially enslave people who have less money or power than you. That is the essence of American Freedom. That is the conservative/libertarian definition of freedom.

    img

    A divided Supreme Court on Thursday swept away decades of legislative efforts to restrict the role of corporations in election campaigns, ruling that severe restrictions on corporate spending are inconsistent with the First Amendment's protection of political speech.

    The court split 5 to 4 over the ruling, with its conservative members in the majority.

    "When government seeks to use its full power, including the criminal law, to command where a person may get his or her information or what distrusted source he or she may not hear, it uses censorship to control thought," the court said in a decision written by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy. "This is unlawful. The First Amendment confirms the freedom to think for ourselves."

    Posted 14 years ago #
  2. truthmod
    Administrator

    President Obama sharply criticized the decision, saying it gives "a green light to a new stampede of special interest money in our politics" and represents "a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans."

    In a statement released by the White House, Obama said the ruling "gives the special interests and their lobbyists even more power in Washington -- while undermining the influence of average Americans who make small contributions to support their preferred candidates." He said he was instructing his administration "to get to work immediately with Congress on this issue" and coordinate with Democratic and Republican leaders on a "forceful response."

    The decision upends the court's precedent that corporations may not use their profits to support or oppose candidates, and it rejects a large portion of the so-called McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform act that the justices had declared constitutional just six years ago. It seems likely to apply to the political role of labor unions as well.

    The decision does not address the restriction on direct contributions to candidates, and it upholds disclosure requirements for groups that mount advertising campaigns for and against candidates.


    The court's liberal bloc, which included new Justice Sonia Sotomayor in the case, dissented. Justice John Paul Stevens took more than 20 minutes to read a dissent from the bench, a move justices reserve for emphasizing their disagreement.

    "A radical change in the law," Stevens called the decision. He said Thursday's majority rejects the decisions of Congress dating from 1907 and "the overwhelming majority of justices who have served on this court."


    But Fred Wertheimer, a veteran campaign reform activist who heads Democracy 21, called the ruling "a disaster for the American people and a dark day for the Supreme Court."

    "In a stark choice between the right of American citizens to a government free from 'influence-buying' corruption and the economic and political interests of American corporations, five Supreme Court Justices today came down in favor of American corporations," Wertheimer said. "With a stroke of the pen, five Justices wiped out a century of American history devoted to preventing corporate corruption of our democracy."

    Posted 14 years ago #
  3. truthmod
    Administrator

    http://rawstory.com/2010/01/blogger-the-corporate-...

    Watchdog groups warn: Corporate globalization of US elections is upon usThe Supreme Court may have ruled in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission days ago, but the decision's shockwaves are still rippling across American democracy.

    Key among them is a concern first raised by Justice John Paul Stevens, who wrote in his dissent that the court, by removing all prohibitions against corporate or union money in U.S. elections, "would appear to afford the same protection to multinational corporations controlled by foreigners as to individual Americans."


    The Center for Public Integrity specifically highlights foreign-owned corporations which operate U.S.-based subsidiaries. The group focused on CITGO Petroleum Company, purchased by Venezuela's state-run oil firm Petróleos de Venezuela in 1990. Through the association, Venezuelan socialist leader Hugo Chavez might conceivably "spend government funds to defeat an American political candidate, just by having CITGO buy TV ads bashing his target."

    Posted 14 years ago #

Reply

You must log in to post.